"Museum going as compulsive consumerism?"

Michael Kimmelman’s recent New York Times article, At Louvre, Many Stop to Snap but Few Stay to Focus, sparked some discussion at Reach Advisors. While the point of the article was interesting, even more interesting were the reader comments that followed. They raised again the questions of why people should visit museums, and what a museum’s role could (or should) be in today’s society.

 

Quotes pulled from the comments following the article:

 

• “And watching the young people, searching out a famous work, focusing the cell phone, clicking - without ever having even looked at the painting. Proof for the folks back home - been there, did that. Museum going as compulsive consumerism.”
• “The majority of the public only goes to museums because they think that somehow they are 'supposed' to, and beyond that, it affords some status to say that one has been to the Louvre, or wherever. Most museum goers do not engage with the art objects or pictures because they simply don't know anything about them, and don't make an effort to prepare to have a meaningful experience by informing themselves. The roots of this, in US culture especially, come from the notion that arts are merely a pleasure, a distraction, and not a necessity or something worthy of intensive study.”             
• “Museums are exhausting. If you think about it, they are a much more concentrated bombardment of images than what the social pundits like to lament we are inundated with in our everyday pop culture, because few of them are trivial, throwaway images, and most people go in believing that. Add to this that we are conditioned to think of museums as some kind of temples housing sacred relics requiring hushed reverence. It's intimidating. Let people have their own fun in the museums. Not everybody's into what you're into, and they're not necessarily the worse for it.”
• “…running from one painting to another as though each was a commodity having no personal connection to the viewer…”

 

Additionally, last week Linda Norris had a complementary blog post about what she observed visitors actually doing at one iconic art museum (including take photos of famous work as well). 

 

It seems that there is a feeling in some quarters that many members of the public, especially those visiting iconic art museums as a part of their role as a tourist, are missing the point of visiting a museum.  They are not really looking at art, famous or not-so-famous.  A Reach Advisors colleague wondered if this is this a view that is shared by any individuals in the museum field?  If yes, do they believe that the visitor is at fault for treating objects as ‘commodities’…or is the museum at fault for failing to connect with its audience?  Is there an intellectual snobbism rearing its head or is there an argument to be made that not all museums are intended to be enjoyed or appreciated by all audiences?

 

What do you think?  To share your thoughts and questions, click on “comments” below (and if you are reading this from your e-mail subscription, go to our blog to comment).

Comments

[John]

Wow. Is the visitor at fault...
When I taught school there was a sure fire way to tell someone who had no business teaching school. They complained about the students. They would go on how students did not arrive in the class with the requisite academic knowledge, manners, or they did not appreciate the pearls of wisdom that the state was mandating we ram into their minds .A standard joke with these burnout types was "This job would be great if it wasn't for two things: Parents and Students!"
So I believe any museum (and I really think that there are almost none who really think this) that suffers from a similar feeling about visitors is shooting itself in the foot. Those burnout teachers take advantage of a government run education system that fails to remove bad elements, and students are required by law to attend. Museums don’t have ready made patrons who lack options.
Visitors are changing. Donors are changing. I think people are actually more apt to come to a museums today, but (and here is another school tie in) since NCLB schools have cut cut cut arts and culture. Children have no frame of reference, or idea of what a museum experience should be like. We are far enough into high stakes testing that new teachers even lack experiences with cultural institutions. So there is no indoctrination into this part of our society. Museums will have to do more of the indoctrinating.

I would like to suggest galleries with training wheels. What if there were a gallery with 3 paintings/sculptures/historic objects/natural history things? What if there were no labels with dates, artists and what the viewer should think, and feel? What if an educator took small groups and challenged the viewers to share their opinions, thoughts, and feelings about the pieces and provided positive feedback no matter the individual interpretation. What if they introduced ideas that others have written or published about the same work? Would this help people know what they were supposed to do with static works that do little more than sit there with no buttons, no way to tag, or thumb up or thumb down.? I think so.

You could still have more advanced galleries with less scaffolding. You could have interactive galleries with visitors able to engage and respond. Here you may find cell phone tours, places to jot down your reactions to showcased works, the traditional gallery tables with interactive activities, and maybe even some screens to touch or watch.

Other galleries could be dedicated as quiet zones. I think reverence for the Mona Lisa, Michal Angelo's David, not to mention Edward Hopper's Woman in the Sun would be an excellent idea. Museums would not assume everyone knew they were to zip it and stare at art in awe and bask in the brilliance of the creator. These are not innate, or even more advanced human traits. They are learned skills. Ones that museum should bring to the public. Signs or docents ( not chastising by saying “DON”T TALK EAT TAKE PHOTOS THINK OR BREATH IN THE PRESCIENCE OF THE ALMIGHTY ART!”) would endeavor to explain to visitors the prized nature of what was on exhibition. Why society has deemed it important, rare or beautiful. That the public is invited to take in the images in a contemplative environ, and that this place is special to many and please keep that in mind as you look. Show your recognition by being respectful to your neighbor. This is what I would tell my students in The New Orleans Museum of Art, or The Birmingham Civil Rights Institute or at The Wall South. Small life lessons I was lucky enough to teach. We should all endeavor to share them at our own museums.

[Bev Dywan]

I could have written that NY Times article myself. About four years ago I went to the Louvre and experienced the same thing- people power walking down hallways filled with da Vinci and Tintoretto, snapping their cell phone cameras the whole time. The Mona Lisa had been recently installed into its new location and the crowd, behind its large waist high barrier, was at least four feet deep snapping pix.

Part of the problem is out comodification of art- the Louvre has banners leading the way to 'La Gioconda' from every entrance, and it is positioned in a setting reminiscent of a bullet proof altar.

That the painting has become an icon of what art is to many cultures makes it desirable to be 'acquired' as another feather in one's quiver. But the fact that people were almost running right by other glorious paintings to get to The Goal just blew me away when I saw it happen. The Louvre itself is such a difficult place to be in - I recently came back from Paris and chose not to go there, I wanted to see some art without the crush of the incredible crowds and click of cameras around me.

I think that art has been given short shrift in many schools, and indeed in many countries in general. It is unnerving to think what our culture will have to show for itself in a century or two if the arts are continued to be held hostage. We can also see that the virtual world has replaced so much of what reality used to be counted on for Experience. As an exhibit designer I am always reluctant to include electronic technology in the interactive galleries I design because the museum should be a place where real interaction happens with real objects.

I also think that the phenomenon of digital photography, its ease and ubiquitousness is something to examine. Taking photos seems to have replaced Experience- for some it must mean that they have a lot of Experience to be catching up on when they get home and download what they've actually seen!

My daughter's school had a 'no photos/no video' policy at all parent events. We were asked to live in the moment, to enjoy what we were seeing and to reflect and integrate those special times. It worked. I wonder if people should just put away the cell phones and the cameras when they go somewhere, and stop trying to 'collect' museums in place of experiencing them. Otherwise they could just cruise the internet and see what a museum has to offer (like the Prado has done with some of their collection).

[James Chung, Reach Advisors]

Bev and John, thanks for taking the time to share the lengthy and insightful comments.

One of the things that I find interesting about that article is that since it was in the Sunday New York Times, it's the medium that we've found to have the biggest impact on shaping opinions among the audience most likely to go to museums. Fortunately, this Times article was more of an introspective observation of the journalist, rather than a cynical article. But it was interesting to see how it sparked such intense comments (418 so far posted to www.nytimes.com) from readers on all sides of the issue. It's probably a good thing that museums remain relevant for that many readers to want to take a stand on what they think museums should be in their minds.

[Linda Norris]

Thanks for the link to my pics of visitors. I've gotten around to writing about an exhibit that does a brilliant job, I think, of providing ways for visitors to understand a very specialized kind of art--at the Rubin Museum in NY.

[James Chung, Reach Advisors]

For anyone interested in taking a look at Linda's post on the Rubin Museum, it's at http://www.uncatalogedmuseum.blogspot.com/. Her post is worth the read...and it looks like the Rubin is worth the visit.

[James Chung, Reach Advisors]

Two random thoughts:

First, if interested in the potential role of photos in cementing memories, Jann Brown posted an interesting comment to our prior post about the "Magic of Seven Year Olds." (http://reachadvisors.typepad.com/museum_audience_insight/2009/08/the-magic-of-sevenyearolds.html)

Second, while the ratio of casual photo-taking visitors appears to be increasing along with the explosion of distribution channels for personal snapshots, there's one instance in particular that we'd like to flag. We've blogged before about the Stephen Colbert portrait first displayed outside the bathroom at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, then at the National Museum of American History. There's a ridiculous number of snapshots of his portrait posted all over the internet. But it's been a great way to engage museum goers that otherwise probably wouldn't be considered the contemplative or engaged types. Not only did they find a portrait that made their visit worthwhile, they took the effort to share the museum with others. It raises an interesting question about how the definition of museum 'engagement' may be expanding along with the explosion of digital channels for individuals to share their world with others.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2042/2202160385_b3ea2cdc54.jpg%3Fv%3D0&imgrefurl=http://flickr.com/photos/iamevltwin/2202160385/&usg=__-Y_fEXzUcbVvN36pluQtofs88y8=&h=500&w=375&sz=100&hl=en&start=37&um=1&tbnid=Fj_mp3nEfcz1gM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsteven%2Bcolbert%2Bportrait%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20%26um%3D1